>> ^bmacs27:

@Lawdeedaw Really? So this sounds like the words of a guy that values the personal liberties of the mother over a zygote?
"There is something that precedes liberty, and that is life," Paul said. "If we are to defend liberty … you have to understand where that liberty, and where that life comes from. It does not come from the government, it comes from our creator."
Seems to me the "right to life" precedes liberty, and I suspect he would legislate accordingly. Not to mention his introduction of the "sanctity of life act" in 2005 which would have defined life as beginning with conception, and his votes in support of a federal ban on partial birth abortions in 2000 and 2003.
Funny, that sounds an awful lot like every other anti-choice politician's policy making. I didn't realize "choice" was such an infringement on "liberty."


Sigh---even if I am wrong on this issue it doesn't make I dumb btw. Nor would it you.

Paul also doesn't believe in the death penalty--but that's again up to states in his opinion. He doesn't like cocaine but it's not his right to take it from you to decide.

Are his policies sound or sane? No less than the other "candidates." I am not saying he is god nor am I saying that all his policies are golden (I.e., the gold standard.) I would still suspect his policies are better than liars who have no real policies...

Essentially I feel the exact same as Paul in this matter except I don't think life begins in the womb (I feel it begins when intellect starts; i.e., when stimuli can be reacted to.) And, just like Paul, I would never, ever take away a woman's choice on abortions.

Below is a conservative site blasting Paul for his decision to put his personal feelings aside and give choice...

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/07/12/ron-paul-wrong-on-abortion-its-a-human-right/

If the cavemen-conservatives hate him, I like him.

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Strictly speaking, it's more like 10 people since I'm paying double the normal rate due to progressive taxes. But I don't understand why you consider my earnings theft. Even if there is a limited supply of money, my money has been received through consensual exchange. If I buy a car which is in limited supply is it by definition stolen? Surely we should reserve the word theft for when things are taken from people against there will. Personally I think taxation is an example of this.


Ah yes...the standard Libertarian view of earnings = consensual exchange and taxation = stealing. The problem is, in a democracy, no amount of tax will ever be consensual to every citizen. That's kind of why we have majority rule, right? So, if one person thinks one penny in tax is theft on the part of government, does that mean we have to have zero taxes? Thankfully, the answer is no.

Most Libertarians favor some sort of basic tax for a defensive military, so consider this. For a time during the Civil War, you could buy your way out of the draft. That was consensual exchange under the law. Do you consider that type of exchange morally acceptable? If a rich father pays for a surrogate soldier for his son, is that fair? The son did nothing to earn that money through free exchange other than be born to a rich family...why does he deserve to have someone fight in his place?

With a truly free market, prostitution would be legal free exchange, you could sell body parts, offer your womb up to carry other peoples' babies, etc. If your answer is "well, let's not go that far" then where do you stop? If you sign a contract to offer up your eggs and a baby for someone else and you change your mind, who do the courts rule in favor of when someone sues?

These are real world questions that beg to be answered when you take the hardcore Libertarian position. Few people successfully argue in favor of their Libertarian position without inviting heavy criticism from wide swathes of the population...hence the lack of a strong Libertarian party in the country. This general line of thought just doesn't hold up in specific real world cases which come up, often making it to the Supreme Court.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^BansheeX:
What I find weird about liberals is that... Medicare and Medicaid is about life prolongation. How much are you willing to transfer from the young to the old? That is the question because that is how these programs are paid for, not by the recipients, but by immediate transfers.

Gee, I dunno. Call me a socialist, but I think if you pay taxes your entire working life, you're entitled to some fucking medical care in your old age. Nah, you're right. What we need are death panels for old people!! Hang on, don't liberals want them too? Those sneaky liberals. They want to kill granny and pay for her medical expenses at the same time!!

Standard Schizophrenic Christian Conservative mentality: protect a person at all cost when they're in the womb, tell them to go to hell once they're out.


"If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school... you're fucked!"

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^BansheeX:
What I find weird about liberals is that... Medicare and Medicaid is about life prolongation. How much are you willing to transfer from the young to the old? That is the question because that is how these programs are paid for, not by the recipients, but by immediate transfers.

Gee, I dunno. Call me a socialist, but I think if you pay taxes your entire working life, you're entitled to some fucking medical care in your old age. Nah, you're right. What we need are death panels for old people!! Hang on, don't liberals want them too? Those sneaky liberals. They want to kill granny and pay for her medical expenses at the same time!!


Standard Schizophrenic Christian Conservative mentality: protect a person at all cost when they're in the womb, tell them to go to hell once they're out.

Oh, hello there. What is up the Siftbot? Maybe it should up it's dose of Abilify? By the way, "Destination" and "Hotel Womb" are my favorite tracks from this album. I be needing some z's. I will continue to browse your sitfs we I get the time

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
uhm, how is this video dead? *notdead It works just fine O_o

A human fetus, while alive, does not have those qualities.

Unless you insist like many of my countrymen that up until the last second before birth there is still nothing more than a non independent fetus inside the womb.

And the law, both federal and that of several states makes it clear that yes, a 2nd trimester baby has the legal rights of a human.

I guess part of my problem may be that I'm Canadian, and up here there are no laws against abortion, to the extreme that if you have a willing doctor when you go in to labor you could still 'choose' anytime before delivery to terminate...

None of this means you have to change your opinion. Look at the evidence and make the decision you think is most rational.

That's a tough thing to say in all this though. After the point you consider a fetus a human being with full rights, you have the same degree of moral obligation to defend that human's right to life as with any other person. If you believe that murder should be illegal and face arrest and jail time, then when other people act on their 'difference of opinion' on when a fetus is a human being you support them being arrested.

I believe the 'solution' is to treat abortions like other life saving situations, they are solely allowed when there is a credible threat to the life of the mother that necessitates a horrible choice. Because I believe a fetus is an independent human being with it's own rights from when it attaches to the womb, it does mean that abortion is lumped in with infanticide, and I'm ok with that. I additionally support a massive effort to treat and prevent the struggles and difficulties faced by prospective parents in difficult circumstances, and to prevent people in difficult circumstances from getting unexpectedly pregnant in the first place.

^Human vs. Human being is just playing on semantics.

My point is the entire debate revolves around what point you consider a fetus to be human in the sense as having the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. For ease I'll try and refer to that as human being here.

From what you've said it seems before the 2nd trimester, you don't consider the fetus a human being. Is it one from the 2nd trimester on? If so, does it have the same rights and freedoms as other human beings starting then? This would ultimately mean terminating it is covered by laws on murder.

As for basing it on brain development, I dislike that as a reason for it being too fuzzy. There is NO clear line to say right there is the point where the ability for consciousness and feeling pain has developed. We just really don't have a good clear definition of consciousness, let alone the brain development required to achieve it. I still stand that implantation in the womb is the only really clear and firm line to be drawn.

This is how you end the abortion debate:

Determine the time at which a fetus is declared a human being and is granted human rights.


The extreme pro-choice crowd says at birth.

The extreme pro-life crowd says even before conception and ever egg is sacred.


It is IMPOSSIBLE for the two sides to even remotely understand one another without addressing instead the question of when life begins. If you can find a clear and objective definition of when a fetus gets promoted to human status you can resolve this, trouble is that just can't be done.

My own best answer is conception in a womb. The reasoning being that after that point, if the mother just does nothing but try to live their lives, the fetus will be born and grow up. That's the natural course from that point on, and any point afterwards just seems an arbitrary and fuzzy mark. That leaves me in the pro-life camp, and I make no apologies for that, despite being -gasp- male...

@rebuilder I never said the birth canal was magical. It is very practical though.

If you feel that a person is a person at some earlier time, then by all means before a child is born require the parents to register the child at their local state office, get a birth person certificate, have the parents claim them on their tax form (while, again, still in the womb), etc. I think that taking such steps wouldn't make any sort of practical sense but hey, to each their own.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@gwiz665 You don't have to be religious to think that babies might be babies in the womb. I still struggle with it. It is my lack of ability to be solid on it that makes me error on the side of liberty, and why I support abortion as a decision best left to the individual. When is a person a person? That isn't only a religious question, but a scientific and philosophical one. Is a person DNA, or their mind? I don't really know the answer there, which is why I still struggle with this issue.


Those broad philosophical questions you are asking, I would say, is a practicing of religion.

You're trying to find some philosophical basis for your questions when you should be looking at them in simple biological terms. When is a person a person? When they are born.

@gwiz665 You don't have to be religious to think that babies might be babies in the womb. I still struggle with it. It is my lack of ability to be solid on it that makes me error on the side of liberty, and why I support abortion as a decision best left to the individual. When is a person a person? That isn't only a religious question, but a scientific and philosophical one. Is a person DNA, or their mind? I don't really know the answer there, which is why I still struggle with this issue.

The Rake's Song
I had entered into a marriage
In the summer of my twenty-first year
And the bells rang for our wedding
Only now do I remember it clear
Alright, alright, alright

No more a rake and no more a bachelor
I was wedded and it whetted my thirst
Until her womb start spilling out babies
Only then did I reckon my curse
Alright, alright, alright
Alright, alright, alright

First came Isaiah with his crinkled little fingers
Then came Charlotte and that wretched girl Dawn
Ugly Myfanwy died on delivery
Mercifully taking her mother along
Alright, alright, alright

What can one do when one is widower
Shamefully saddled with three little pests
All that I wanted was the freedom of a new life
So my burden I began to divest
Alright, alright, alright
Alright, alright, alright

Charlotte I buried after feeding her foxglove
Dawn was easy, she was drowned in the bath
Isaiah fought but was easily bested
Burned his body for incurring my wrath
Alright, alright, alright

And that's how I came your humble narrator
To be living so easy and free
Expect you think that I should be haunted
But it never really bothers me
Alright, alright, alright
Alright, alright, alright

Hazards of Love 3
Father I'm not feeling well
the flowers me you fed
Tasted spoiled for suddenly
I find that I am dead
But father don't you fear
your children all are here
singing ooooh the hazards of love

Father turn the water down
the basins overflown
the water covers everything
and me left all alone
but papa here in death
I have regained my breath
to sing ooooh the hazards of love
to sing ooooh the hazards of love

Spare the rod, you'll spoil the child
but I prefer the lash
my sisters drowned and poisoned
all of me reduced to ash
and buried in an urn
but father I return
singing ooooh the hazards of love
singing ooooh the hazards of love
the hazards of love
the hazards of love

Take the statue down? How about get the fuck out of my neighborhood? You don't like my expression of art, fine. You can't trod on my freedoms just because you disagree with me. I don't like you and your annoying little shitfucking kids running around screaming and yelling, but I don't tell you to perform a post-womb abortion, do I? At least my art display serves a function. What do your obnoxious, screamy hellspawn offer besides annoyance and destruction?

That's it. I'm suing you. Stop making babies, and get the fuck out of my neighborhood. That's all you have to do.

It's art, idiots. If you're afraid of body parts and talking to your children, MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE FUCKING HAD THEM, HUH? >:[

>> ^KnivesOut:

It's the classic hypocrisy of the tea-party. On one hand, they cry about people not following the Constitution and on the other, they want the gubment to regulate drugs, wombs, and nuptials.
I'm surprised Ron Paul can claim membership in the Tea Party with a straight face.


As a non-american I thought he was an independent?